This week the Seattle Times endorsed Koster over Suzan DelBene for Washington's 1st Congressional District.
The Times says Koster's "views are well known and consistently applied over decades in elective office and public service" while DelBene is only known "from the campaign trail." The Times further says that "Koster understands the fragility of the economy from the Main Street level, and the anxiety and uncertainty of the small-business operator. He is equally conservative about ending overseas conflicts and cautionary about going to war without a clear mission and exit strategy."
The Times adds, "We disagree with Koster on social issues, but in Congress right now, his fiscal viewpoint and elected experience are what�s needed," which is notable given that almost everything the Democrats and DelBene are saying about Koster right now is bizarrely about abortion, while our economy and federal government's fiscal health are, to put it midly, in the toilet.
Maybe this endorsement will shock the DelBene campaign and her backers into getting serious about the issues.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at October 04, 2012 11:35 PM | Email ThisThey will keep doing it until it is shown not to work. So far, it works.
Posted by: Kato on October 5, 2012 09:37 AMI think 2012 will be at least somewhat different.
He's a good guy, too, and we can't have too much of that in DC. People are sick of elitist, mean and nasty leftists in DC.
Posted by: Monterey on October 5, 2012 01:35 PMYet, you wrote in your response the reason (that is "In Congress"). Since the current Congress (last two years) has little as far as results to show (i.e., bills passed, especially bills of any importance) , it is wise to recommend someone who may get the job done in Congress.
I would put forth to you that in spite of the current President's actions or non-actions, Congress could have passed bills addressing the issues and then it would be up to the President to sign or veto them. The problem is, we haven't seen that occur. This Congress has been one of the least productive in modern history (last 50 years).
Hopefully, the next two years, no matter who gets elected as President, Congress will be more productive and send whoever is President more legislation to approve or veto.
I am for Koster (and Baumgartner for Senate) and hope they can at least change the tone. It is time to get rid of the current congress and senators, where we get the chance (no matter party).
Posted by: tc on October 5, 2012 04:17 PMWho was been the stumbling block with Congress - in particular, the budget? The House (of which Koster would be a member of the majority) does its job. The Democrat (that's the President's party, of which he is the de-facto head) controlled Senate is the land of obstructionism.
It seems that the Times thinks the policies of the GOP are the right policies for Congress to push and get to the Presidency. But they support a President opposed to most of those policies... I guess they either want gridlock, or they're just playing politics. I think the latter is more appropriate.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 5, 2012 07:00 PMThe House passed a bunch of jobs bills, the Senate won't take up a single one ... but when the Senate passes one, the House is "obstructionist" for not voting for it.
It's just insanity. This is the DC version of "stop hitting yourself! stop hitting yourself!"
Posted by: pudge on October 5, 2012 07:20 PMIt's not who votes who counts, it's who counts the votes that matters! King County Elections did its job for Gregoire back in the '08 election.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on October 6, 2012 09:48 AMThe problem I see is no matter whether it is Romney or Obama as President, I don't see the House and Senate changing, particularly the Senate where even if GOP take control it will be in the 51-53 range. McConnell has set the precedent for minority party operations. Let's say Romney is elected, the House stays GOP (98% likelihood), and the Senate flips to GOP (51 to 49). Reid, playing from McConnell's playbook will do everything to make Romney a one-term president. Why wouldn't he? The precident has been set and it will take a few elections to weed out the old guard (McConnells and Reids) with new blood (like Baumgartner).
Posted by: tc on October 8, 2012 08:48 AMSigh. Such ignorance.
First off, McConnell and the GOP in the Senate has supported the bills they've agreed with. You'll find no examples contradicting this.
To imply they've opposed bills they otherwise would've agreed with just to hurt Obama is a lie. To imply McConnell ever said they would is a lie. All McConnell said is that his top political priority was defeating Obama ... which makes him no different from Reid and Pelosi in the runup to 2004.
And my goodness, Reid was the top obstructionist in the Congress for the six years Bush had the House. If anything, Reid will play from Reid's own playbook.
The only real difference here is that the parties have diverged more on the issues, so there's less agreement. But the difference is, very clearly, disagreement on the issues. Unless you can point to bills being shot down by the GOP that they would otherwise agree with if not for trying to hurt Obama, you have no case.
The biggest fail of the Democrats in the Senate has been the budget - and that does NOT need a 60 vote majority (it is exempt from unending filibusters). The ONLY reason a budget has not been passed in nearly 4 years is because Harry Reid refuses to let it come out of committee - and thus cannot be voted on.
If the GOP controlled the Senate, even by 1 vote, we'd at least have votes on the budget - which is arguably the most important thing that Congress as a whole can do (setting our national budget). This is 100% the fail of the Democrats/Harry Reid, and would be absolutely changed with a GOP controlled Senate.
It wouldn't be "business as usual" as we see with the Democrats.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 8, 2012 09:39 AMNo, to me the bigger failure in Congress is not coming up with a Jobs Bill when clearly an additional Jobs Bill has been needed. The House tried in spirit, but in practicality, their bills wouldn't add that many jobs. The President's American Jobs bill was DOA with the GOP, so it went nowhere.
I blame both sides for this stalemate and the fact that the economy isn't growing as fast as it could. For the GOP, the blaim is with putting ideology first. For the Democrats, it is both ideology plus naivete. On the latter part, the Democrats have been practicing the art of insanity (doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results). They should recognize where the GOP was coming from and tried a different tactic, like tax-cut only stimulus that targeted small businesses. The Democrats certainly made the GOP job a lot easier by the blatant political miscalculations they made.
I don't see how Romney can change things. Maybe the Romney of the last debate (true-Romney showing, not version that was running for nomination, but more Massachusetts Romney) can get the GOP to play ball in Congress. However, the GOP in Congress may skew even more ideologically to the right and try to force Romney to follow them instead of following him. I can't get a read on Romney's toughness to stand up to Congress. That is probably a separate thread. All I can do is vote for congressman and senators who I think want to get the job done and put getting the job done above ideology. That is why I do like Koster and Baumgartner.
Posted by: tc on October 8, 2012 10:37 AMNothing is clear about that at all.
I'm not sure about your statement at 4 that identity politics may not be different this year. Which I interpret to mean less.
I have a fair number of both liberal and conservative friends and we are honest with each other about politics. Most, if not all, of my liberal friends are voting "D". This is even after admitting that the "D's" in WA have pretty much ruined out state. There is no argument agains our trade, deficits, education, taxation, emergency and social services, floundering under their "rule". Even though conservatives have had a number of viable plans to lift WA up my "D" friends say they just don't trust voting for the other guy.
Basically, regardless of argument or mindset, they are voting party line. My Facebook friends are another indication....Mostly party line "D" voters if that is the way they lean.
My mother is a hardcare "D", but a recently retired teacher. Even though she cannot point to one policy in the "D" ticket to lift education in the state, and I can point the "D" party cutting education multiple times and siding with unions on keeping bad policy, she refuses to vote anything other than "D".
I do agree with you that "liberals" and "conservatives" will vote party line. But there's a lot of independents out there, and I see them shifting more to R this year than in the last few elections.
So the House at least tried to do something - and it was blocked in the Senate. The biggest obstruction to a functioning Congress right now is Harry Reid...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on October 8, 2012 03:19 PMWhen you say "an additional jobs bill", I would ask, "in addition to what?"
A second question is what would this "jobs" bill cost and what would it be comprised of?
I am of the opinion that some strategic business tax cuts, coupled with a reversal of oppressive federal and state (over)regulation along with a massive effort to become energy independent through oil, gas and coal exploration/development and this country's job problem would take care of itself. Anyone who wants a job should have an opportunity to find work. And every able-bodied person should be forced off the unemployment and welfare rolls.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 8, 2012 05:44 PMFor me and idea jobs bill would spur the construction industry to help rebuild the Nation's crumbling infrastructure.
Posted by: tcwebmail@gmail.com on October 10, 2012 07:31 AM